Yes, the Arwen scenes were a bit <BR>unnecessary and I personally thought that the continually changing scenes in Towers got a little annoying after a while. But, except for those little points, the movie was great!

FOTR was good, but it was more of an introduction to the movies for beginners, and it didn't have much action. <P> Now TTT on the other hand...<BR>(1) more action<P>(2) better soundtrack<P>(3) better acting<P>(4) better fight scenes<P>(5) more kicking orc butt!

I would say FOTR because there was more depth to it. TTT was really good but I could have done without Aragorn falling over the cliff (cheesy) and the mushy love scenes (*blarg*) the demented lemmings called wargs were so-so and I won't get started on Faramir .. but it was really good otherwise

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>especially the whole 'Estel is dead' thing;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> Hey! That wasn't nice! <p>[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: The Only Real Estel ]

What surprised me the most was that the two films felt completely different. I did not expect that, since they shot them all at the same time, although I guess the books do vary greatly in mood. While I thought Fellowship of the Ring was about hope and the finding of courage, the Two Towers movie felt like it had an overwhelming sense of godlessness and hopelessness. It seemed like a tale out of the Dark Ages, and all of the characters were much more solemn and subdued than in the book. I would cast my vote for Fellowship of the Ring for which on I enjoyed watching more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR> Hey! That wasn't nice!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P> You know what I mean...

I know, couldn't resist a little fun-poking...

The tt was my favorite movie because it had more action in it and It was interesting to see all the differet places and people. I also think that it was more dramatic.

I think I like each movie in a different way. Fotr because it just has a good feeling to it I guess, and its very true to the book, and TTT because it was more active and up beat. But I like them both the same.

Welcome to the Downs, Genevive! Enjoy being dead!

I find the comments that Fellowship was more true to the book interesting. <P>Acelerated exiting from Hobbiton, no Crickhollow, no Gildor, no Bombadil, changed encounter at Weathertop, Arwen instead of Glorfindel, quick assembly of the Fellowship, extended troll battle, changes at Amon Hen. Two Towers certainly had it's share of changes, but I think it's tough to argue there were more of them or they were larger.<P>Perhaps people just found the changes in Fellowship more digestable - or, perhaps, they have had longer to get used to them - or, perhaps, we have a lot of people that have read (and reread) the book between the two movies and are thus noticing the changes more in the second film.<P>H.C.

Ok, maybe it isn't as true to the book as I wish it was, but I guess I've healed and tend to ignore the fact that parts are twisted and some missing. I've grown used to it in a way (not entirely, but oh well.) I'm not making much sense, sorry.<BR>Thanks for pointing that out though.<p>[ July 29, 2003: Message edited by: Genevieve ]

Sorry Genevieve, I didn't mean to sound like I was singling you out. Many folks comments reflect a belief that Two Towers had more changes, including my own.<P>H.C.

Im just kind of sorting out what I think about fotr and ttt. sorry if im not making much sense to anyone .

TTT was o.k., but I'm not into all those battle scenes. I mean,75% of it was just that. <BR> Now FotR, I realy liked the begining when every thing was pleasant, like in the book.And how the evil crept into the story.I think I'm getting weird so I'll quit.<P>----------------------<BR>Life in new, not!